Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. Exactly. Darwin's beliefs in linear progress and stable populations led to his conclusion that only the fittest survive. He had no experiments, only speculation and old wives' tales so he was wrong.

Meanwhile if my assumptions are correct it explains how agriculture was invented and why history lagged writing by more than 1000 years. If my assumptions are correct and experiment is relevant it explain how species really change, people think, and pyramids were built. That I also assume homo sapiens were smarter has no bearing on this equation.

I think that you take details that you pick up here and there and have woven them all together in a personal narrative that you consider to be how it is.

That you find no one interested in accepting this without reason seems to confound you, but not deter you.

It is my observation that you disappear to come up with rationalizations that sustain your beliefs as fact for you, but continue to lose ever larger support when you reveal these new "truths" as facts of science to others.

 

[cladking]

There is no cult of scientism, but you seem to be a one-man cult dedicated to promoting that fiction.

Many agree with him and for very similar reasons.

I learned a lot of science as an undergraduate (BS biochemistry) and medical school, and I used it to make a living and to make a difference in the lives of others.

I'm sure ya done good.

Perhaps if you had used your knowledge of science in medical research you might have done even more good for lots more people. Or maybe you'd have been responsible for the accidental release of covid 94 and brought extinction to homo omnisciencis. I'm sure I've done a lot of good as well though much of it was rejected because it was far outside the status quo. If Egyptologists ever actually employ science in the study of the pyramids it might be a lot more good I've done. I'm not holding my breath though.

You helped people one at a time while i might help eight billion meek people all at once. Just like science changes suddenly and all life at all levels change suddenly the meek of the earth might all suddenly inherit it. To each his own. Conformity and the status quo permeate every modern institution. Dogma prevails and battle lines are drawn. If belief in science and the status quo prevail all anyone might inherit is dust and ashes. Our "betters" will enslave us before this.

As you might have noticed, this atheistic humanist hasn't abandoned philosophy. I've given you much of my own here already. The rest has to do with naturalism.

And again, we are each different. It is certainly possible to have morals and a conscience without a belief in God even if you believe in Science. It has never been my contention that either scientists or those who believe in science are immoral or evil. It is my contention that Science is a methodology and not a proper religion because it spawns nihilism and greed whose only morality is "Greed is good".

There are very few evil people in the world. Remember I keep saying "everyone makes sense, everyone tries to do good"? Most of the evil in the world today is just trying to make a buck even if it destroys people. Many people do not function well without a religion and today many of them just believe in Science instead.

Are you making the same claim as @PureX , which he calls scientism? If so, his cult is up to at least two now.

I've said so many times in many different ways. If you don't understand that last sentence then YES!!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

...And you dismiss it because I can't produce a brain scan of an extinct homo sapien! I'm simply showing the evidence that suggests if we did have a brain scan it would be different than any living human. Everyone watching a living homo sapien would say that "it" acts and looks like an animal.

We could not communicate with it. In time we might learn it a little English and have very limited communication.

To it we would seem to be sleep walkers.

I have no evidence of the neurochemistry, neurophysiology or the evolution brains in humans from 2,000, 10,000 or 40,000 years ago. I can't really speak on it. But your equal lack of evidence eliminates my confidence to agree with any assertion you have made about them as well. How can you know about regions of human brains with such confidence when you have not had the material to examine and test? When you cannot provide that material for others to examine and test.

Your conclusions are dismissed for that reason just as any I made would be dismissed for the same reason.

Why you want to rend prehistoric Homo sapiens from modern and recent Homo sapiens? Well, that is a mystery. But again, nothing I have any reason to give credence to based on the evidence I do have available.

 

[cladking]

Like I said, my ways work for me.

I believe circular reasoning is bad. It is unavoidable but very very bad. It is the chief cause of all of humanity's problems.

Just being aware that it exists all the time would improve our lot by 90%.

You keep telling me that I have gone wrong, but everything is good here.

Really? Where do you get refrigerators that actually work and chicken not full of contaminated Chinese chemicals and water?

How do you avoid getting into accidents with drunks and paying taxes to fix roads torn up by trucks hauling water sold at chicken prices?

In my world everything people do affects me just like in reality all things affect all other things in real time.

You probably should stop telling me what my problems are, what I'm blind to, and what mistakes you think I'm making. You don't have any chance of making an impact if I don't agree. I've told you repeatedly that my way of approaching and navigating reality works well for me, which I understand as validation of that worldview. I have no incentive to change it.

Everyone is invested in the status quo, always have been. Everyone imagines any change will be for the worse because it usually is. Massive change in perception of reality is feared above all else.

We are on a very bad road marching in lockstep. Only the truth might set us free. Maybe not. Maybe it would just mean the end of the road.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Many agree with him and for very similar reasons.

You apparently agree with that view. I have seen one or two creationists agree with that view. I wouldn't call that many. And there is the fact of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I think the agreement is based on the rejection of science that confounds you and others with religious agendas that want to derail the value of science and any science that conflicts with certain personal ideologies.

That isn't the same thing as endorsing someone or some view as correct.

I'm sure ya done good.

Perhaps if you had used your knowledge of science in medical research you might have done even more good for lots more people. Or maybe you'd have been responsible for the accidental release of covid 94 and brought extinction to homo omnisciencis.

I'm puzzled how anyone could cause the extinction of a species not known to exist. Another mystery with no predicted explanation expected to arrive.

I'm sure I've done a lot of good as well though much of it was rejected because it was far outside the status quo.

Or because it was baseless. Trying to paint your baseless assertions as some sort of avant garde knowledge or means of acquiring knowledge is a tactic and not a basis for making them real. You are trying to elevate your unsupported claims as revealed factual truth again.

If Egyptologists ever actually employ science in the study of the pyramids it might be a lot more good I've done. I'm not holding my breath though.

It is my understanding that they do employ science. It is more likely that it contradicts your beliefs about ancient Egypt and this is the root of your claim.

You helped people one at a time while i might help eight billion meek people all at once. Just like science changes suddenly and all life at all levels change suddenly the meek of the earth might all suddenly inherit it. To each his own. Conformity and the status quo permeate every modern institution. Dogma prevails and battle lines are drawn. If belief in science and the status quo prevail all anyone might inherit is dust and ashes. Our "betters" will enslave us before this.

And again, we are each different. It is certainly possible to have morals and a conscience without a belief in God even if you believe in Science. It has never been my contention that either scientists or those who believe in science are immoral or evil. It is my contention that Science is a methodology and not a proper religion because it spawns nihilism and greed whose only morality is "Greed is good".

History indicates that we didn't need science for immorality to exist. Trying to blame the morality of people on a methodology that falsifies a personal belief is just sour grapes in my view.

There are very few evil people in the world. Remember I keep saying "everyone makes sense, everyone tries to do good"? Most of the evil in the world today is just trying to make a buck even if it destroys people. Many people do not function well without a religion and today many of them just believe in Science instead.

All people do evil things as far as I know. Some big and some small. Some of them just do it more widely and a few do it well to the point of succeeding, but that doesn't mean that everyone makes sense and tries to do good. Some don't make sense and do no harm. Some don't make sense and try to sell that for many reasons including belief that they know better. Some make sense and go no where. Some make sense and pass that fruit on.

I've said so many times in many different ways. If you don't understand that last sentence the YES!!!

Something we agree on. You definitely think that anyone that chooses knowledge gleaned using science and rejects your claims is a member of the cult of scientism.

 

[cladking]

If populations are stable, then there would be universal stasis and nothing would evolve. All the evidence demonstrating evolution would need another explanation and there is no other that fits the evidence.

You sure don't think like I do.

According to Evolution there is no reason species won't change with relatively stable populations. Darwin developed his "theory" with the assumption that populations were stable. He also assumed that individuals and consciousness were irrelevant. In those days virtually all scientists believed only humans were conscious. I believe only humans are not.

I think that you take details that you pick up here and there and have woven them all together in a personal narrative that you consider to be how it is.

Yes! This is what I have been trying to say for years now. I try to gather insights from all individuals living and dead and weave it all together from experiment and physical evidence. Believe it or not it has worked (mostly) very well for me (at least until 17 years ago).

I believe reality is a manifestation of logic, mathematics is logic quantified, and life is logic incarnate. Incarnated logic is free will expressed as consciousness. Natural science is an understanding of reality through observation and logic and modern science is dependent on observation and the logic of reality as demonstrated in experiment. I believe this is the formatting of EVERYTHING. As such there is a strong implication that anything not supported by experiment may not be reality. I believe this will be the paradigm in the offchance that homo omnisciencis survives the next century. Pyramids were built with funiculars and we have been confused since the "tower of babel".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You sure don't think like I do.

Thank God.

According to Evolution there is no reason species won't change with relatively stable populations.

The change in species is driven by the environment acting on variation in the population.

Darwin developed his "theory" with the assumption that populations were stable.

No. He recognized that populations are kept in check by the environment.

He also assumed that individuals and consciousness were irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what? There is no evidence that speciation requires consciousness. It isn't an assumption, because it isn't even a consideration.

In those days virtually all scientists believed only humans were conscious. I believe only humans are not.

What you believe is irrelevant.

Yes! This is what I have been trying to say for years now. I try to gather insights from all individuals living and dead and weave it all together from experiment and physical evidence. Believe it or not it has worked (mostly) very well for me (at least until 17 years ago).

I have no evidence that you have any experiments or experimental evidence to support this wild claim. From what I see, you take snippets of the work of others and weave them into a tapestry of belief that you consider is valid and factual.

What works is very likely something else and you are just giving credit to a fan fiction version of science that has no basis in fact.

I believe reality is a manifestation of logic, mathematics is logic quantified, and life is logic incarnate.

That is a unique belief. It doesn't mean anything to the facts and science you don't want to discuss, but many of us do.

Incarnated logic is free will expressed as consciousness.

That tells me nothing except that you believe something you can't really explain.

Natural science is an understanding of reality through observation and logic and modern science is dependent on observation and the logic of reality as demonstrated in experiment. I believe this is the formatting of EVERYTHING. As such there is a strong implication that anything not supported by experiment may not be reality. I believe this will be the paradigm in the offchance that homo omnisciencis survives the next century. Pyramids were built with funiculars and we have been confused since the "tower of babel".

Again, your belief and you are welcome to it, but it offers no incentive for me to help you maintain your belief as science and fact in light of all the facts and reason against it.

Since you have no real interest in anything I have posted except as a spring board to launch into a rambling agenda, I think this is the pinnacle of what we can achieve here by way of lopsided conversation.

 

[cladking]

I have no evidence of the neurochemistry, neurophysiology or the evolution brains in humans from 2,000, 10,000 or 40,000 years ago. I can't really speak on it. But your equal lack of evidence eliminates my confidence to agree with any assertion you have made about them as well.

I am saying the evidence is apparent. We can't understand ancient writing even after it is translated. humans arose suddenly 40,000 years ago. Do you think some neanderthal named "Adam" woke up one day and decided to teach everyone how to act "human". NO. There was a mutation and since human progress OBVIOUSLY derives from language then "Adam" mustta had a mutation involving language. There is ample evidence about the way modern humans think that can be used to deduce how ancient people thought and the anatomical differences that must pertain.

The alternative is to believe in miracles like animals act on instinct and each rabbit is like every other rabbit. The alternative is to believe writing was invented even though the inventors had nothing worth recording. The alternative is some stone age Darwin taught ancient people how to use agriculture.

There are no other viable alternatives to this theory at this time. So we are left with ancient manuscripts that say pyramids were built by the gods who were actually theory as derived from a different way to do science. Itis just like bee science or beaver science. Obviously if the literal meaning of this writing couldn't be seen even by the translators it implies the writers didn't think like the translators. It implies they may have been a different species with a different mode of thinking.

 

[cladking]

Why you want to rend prehistoric Homo sapiens from modern and recent Homo sapiens? Well, that is a mystery. But again, nothing I have any reason to give credence to based on the evidence I do have available.

I have no emotional interest in whether the species that arose from the dust of the tower of babel was the same that climbed up it. I wouldn't even care if future people thought I was right but that the difference was insufficient to call a speciation event.

I believe the behavior and motivation of ancient people was wholly and absolutely different than our species. This difference is the very reason that it's invisible to anthropologists, archaeologists, Egyptologists and every other ologist et al. We are absolutely different even though anatomically it's just one tiny area of the brain that is different. This is the brocca's area and it contains all the hardware to acquire modern confused language and then operates the entire brain until death.

I truly don't care. I only care if my model more closely reflects reality than other models.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am saying the evidence is apparent.

Yet, you cannot provide it or demonstrate evidence or that it is evidence for your claims.

We can't understand ancient writing even after it is translated.

Another claim that is not an established fact.

humans arose suddenly 40,000 years ago.

No evidence to support this at all.

Do you think some neanderthal named "Adam" woke up one day and decided to teach everyone how to act "human". NO. There was a mutation and since human progress OBVIOUSLY derives from language then "Adam" mustta had a mutation involving language. There is ample evidence about the way modern humans think that can be used to deduce how ancient people thought and the anatomical differences that must pertain.

Speculation and not at all very good speculation.

The alternative is to believe in miracles like animals act on instinct and each rabbit is like every other rabbit. The alternative is to believe writing was invented even though the inventors had nothing worth recording. The alternative is some stone age Darwin taught ancient people how to use agriculture.

What I see in this is rambling and desperately reaching for anything to keep you in a conversation as some sort of expert.

The main conception is that Homo sapiens evolved from a pre-existing species and that the evolution continued and we mastered the ability to speak, write, communicate and create out of the results of that evolution. Yours is the alternative and not a sound, rational or supported alternative.

There are no other viable alternatives to this theory at this time.

I agree that your alternatives are not viable.

So we are left with ancient manuscripts that say pyramids were built by the gods who were actually theory as derived from a different way to do science. Itis just like bee science or beaver science. Obviously if the literal meaning of this writing couldn't be seen even by the translators it implies the writers didn't think like the translators. It implies they may have been a different species with a different mode of thinking.

Back to pyramids and unsupported assertion treated as fact. That people do not think the same is correct in my understanding, but extending that difference as the basis of your beliefs is yours alone and nothing for me and I think many, many, many others to consider as valid or reasonable.

There is no implication that we are a different species now than we were thousands of years ago. The evidence supports this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no emotional interest in whether the species that arose from the dust of the tower of babel was the same that climbed up it. I wouldn't even care if future people thought I was right but that the difference was insufficient to call a speciation event.

I believe the behavior and motivation of ancient people was wholly and absolutely different than our species. This difference is the very reason that it's invisible to anthropologists, archaeologists, Egyptologists and every other ologist et al. We are absolutely different even though anatomically it's just one tiny area of the brain that is different. This is the brocca's area and it contains all the hardware to acquire modern confused language and then operates the entire brain until death.

I truly don't care. I only care if my model more closely reflects reality than other models.

I know that you truly don't care. It is your way or the highway.

I'm taking the highway. Where there is a greater chance to actually find models that more closely reflect reality.

Good luck with your fan fiction science.

 

[PureX]

That is your opinion and not one that I agree with. It can, but does it always.

What does 'always' have to do with anything?

I really don't know and I don't know that you know either.

So your opinion isn't very well grounded, then is it.

Is it science that creates the morality or is it the agents with or without morality that are creating it?

I could ask the same of those who like to blame religion for all of mankind's evil deeds. But the real answer would be that it's both. People gravitate toward the ideologies and behaviors that they resonate with, and those ideologies and behaviors then further enable them in that capacity.

I would put you in the category as a definite science denier.

And as usual, you would be very wrong.

Some consider the definition of science acceptance is accepting and using technology, but that is insufficient to a definition.

Technology is to science what religious practice is to theology. Think about it.

What I have seen is that you see anyone that accepts science or disagrees with your opinions all ensconced in some mythical cult of scientism.

The fact that you would use terminology like "accepts science" already has you way off the mark when it comes to the reality of what science is and what it does. "Accepting science" is a cult term. Like "accepting Jesus" or accepting that "might makes right". It's all about compliance to the dogma. Which is EXACTLY what science is NOT about. And is NOT how science works, or even why humans engage in it. At least not properly. Yet this is the mainstay of the scientism crowd ... that we MUST accept the dogma of science as imagined and spewed forth by the scientism cult members. Because to them, science is the one and only fountainhead of reality and truth and knowledge and understanding and is the giver of the sacred technology! I know the spiel well.

 

[cladking]

You apparently agree with that view. I have seen one or two creationists agree with that view. I wouldn't call that many. And there is the fact of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I think the agreement is based on the rejection of science that confounds you and others with religious agendas that want to derail the value of science and any science that conflicts with certain personal ideologies.

That isn't the same thing as endorsing someone or some view as correct.

Well certainly I chum up with lots of crackpots with pyramid ideas largely for this reason. But I chum up with them primarily because the MO of Egyptologists was to divide and conquer. They'd pit we crackpots against one another and then come in and beat us all with "cultural context this" and "cultural context that". It doesn't work any longer because we stick together against a common enemy that eschews science and refuses to gather evidence or allow real scientists to gather evidence. Their tactics no longer work.

But I happen to agree with many of the religious people here and most solid arguments come from them. I believe this is because they use reason and because religion was based on ancient science. As such religion resonates with people today because we aren't wholly distinct from homo sapiens. We still share the same concerns and the same means to seek truth; consciousness.

 

[PureX]

I remain unconvinced.

Whatever made you think it was my job to convince you?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What does 'always' have to do with anything?

So your opinion isn't very well grounded, then is it.

I could ask the same of those who like to blame religion for all of mankind's evil deeds. But the real answer would be that it's both. People gravitate toward the ideologies and behaviors that they resonate with, and those ideologies and behaviors then further enable them in that capacity.

And as usual, you would be very wrong.

Technology is to science what religious practice is to theology. Think about it.

The fact that you would use terminology like "accepts science" already has you way off the mark when it comes to the reality of what science is and what it does. "Accepting science" is a cult term. Like "accepting Jesus" or accepting that "might makes right". It's all about compliance to the dogma. Which is EXACTLY what science is NOT about. And is NOT how science works, or even why humans engage in it. At least not properly. Yet this is the mainstay of the scientism crowd ... that we MUST accept the dogma of science is imagine and spewed forth by the scientism cult members. Because o them, science is the one and only fountainhead of reality and truth and knowledge and understanding and is the giver of the sacred technology! I know the spiel well.

No. I'm not wrong. I think my hammer has hit the nail squarely on the head.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well certainly I chum up with lots of crackpots with pyramid ideas largely for this reason. But I chum up with them primarily because the MO of Egyptologists was to divide and conquer. They'd pit we crackpots against one another and then come in and beat us all with "cultural context this" and "cultural context that". It doesn't work any longer because we stick together against a common enemy that eschews science and refuses to gather evidence or allow real scientists to gather evidence. Their tactics no longer work.

But I happen to agree with many of the religious people here and most solid arguments come from them. I believe this is because they use reason and because religion was based on ancient science. As such religion resonates with people today because we aren't wholly distinct from homo sapiens. We still share the same concerns and the same means to seek truth; consciousness.

You needn't bother continuing this. I'm headed out on the highway.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Whatever made you think it was my job to convince you?

I don't think that is your job. I have some thoughts on what you think your job is, but that's for another day perhaps.

You enjoy inflating whatever you have to in order to feel better.

I'm off to more interesting things for now.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You enjoy inflating whatever you have to in order to feel better.

What we know is that he dislikes both atheists and critically thinking empiricists who reject his implication that they are myopic, and that he sees further using his special way of knowing.

These are different things in my estimation and represents his solution to two separate problems. I've speculated with him a few times in the past as to what those were, but he has repeatedly declined to discuss it, so I'm assuming that I hit a little too close to home for his comfort.

Perhaps if you had used your knowledge of science in medical research you might have done even more good for lots more people.

Maybe, but doing good for others wasn't my only purpose in choosing clinical medicine. I liked the human interaction, and didn't like the research experience I had as an undergrad. Those labs taught me what the cubicles in the Army taught me about the kind of work I DIDN'T want to do.

I also liked the instant and automatic respect, as well as being self-employed.

There was another big benefit. The good income allowed us to travel the world, eat out every night, perform musically at no charge, which made us welcome everywhere and allowed us to play what we liked, and then retire early and comfortably.

even if you believe in Science.

I don't. I told you already that though I have many beliefs, I believe in nothing.

I believe circular reasoning is bad.

All fallacious thinking is undesirable.

Why did you want to tell me that in response to my comment, "Like I said, my ways work for me." Is that what you are calling circular reasoning? It's not even an argument, so how can there be a fallacy there? We can make it an argument by adding the rest: "... therefore, I have no incentive to change those ways." I still don't see circularity or any other logical fallacy there.

Where do you get refrigerators that actually work ...

Our refrigerator-freezer came from Tio Sam's. It's about fifteen years old now and going strong. It's a Maytag that looks like the Sub-Zero we used to have, that is, very wide with double doors on the top and a pull-out freezer below.

... and chicken not full of contaminated Chinese chemicals and water?

Why would our chicken be contaminated with Chinese chemicals or water? Because we live in Mexico?

How do you avoid getting into accidents with drunks ...

Probably the same way you do. One thing about this lifestyle is the it is village life, and what's not withing walking distance is less than a five mile drive. Our car is a year 2000 model with under 80,000 miles on it. A tank of gas is good for about 3-4 months. Our carbon footprint is less than zero, since we burn so little gas, use propane only for the range top and outdoor grill (water is heated from the roof and the sun. Since we put up twelve panels when eight would do the trick, we send the local utility a lot of free power that they sell to other customers without having to burn fossil fuels to generate it.

... and paying taxes to fix roads torn up by trucks hauling water sold at chicken prices?

I don't avoid paying taxes, and I pay them gladly.

You have a strange idea of how we live here.

Everyone is invested in the status quo

Disagree. Right now, a lot of Americans want to change their country into a dictatorship run by a strongman.

Everyone imagines any change will be for the worse because it usually is.

Disagree again. We left the States because we considered the move to be an improvement in our lives, and it was. While it's still a better country to live in for the first two stages of life - education and career - America has nothing to offer retired people

We are on a very bad road marching in lockstep.

You keep saying we. Are you on such a road? I'm not.

Are you happy? Are you safe? Are you free from privation? Do you have freedom? Do you do things you like to do?

If so, why so much negativity about the world? I'm aware that many live terrible lives and that many have few of those things, but that doesn't prevent me from seeing that many do, nor does it prevent me from feeling grateful that my life was and is better.

MAGA all seem to be miserable people what with them being fed an endless litany of lies and grievances and them accepting them uncritically, but you're not that, are you?

Jehovah's Witnesses also seem to have a similarly bleak outlook on reality but aren't as angry as MAGAs. Are you from that camp?

If neither, who taught you to think like that?

 

[PureX]

That's not been my experience personally or as an observer of others. Empiricism is the only path to knowledge about reality for me and many others as well.

What makes you think you would see it if it's true?

Having a strictly empiricist epistemology does not speak to one's moral sense.

Yes, and that's a serious flaw that should warrant our NOT adhering strictly an empiricist epistemology.

With atheistic humanism, we employ rational ethics.

Based on WHAT? Functionality? Because that's all science is designed to deal with. And you've thrown out art, religion, and most of philosophy.

We begin with a vision for society and for personal behavior and invent rules that facilitate that vision.

What 'vision'? Who's 'vision'? Who put you in charge of creating visions for all of society? These are all questions that your sacred empiricist epistemology cannot even address, let alone answer. Because it "does not speak to one's moral sense" (that's you, by the way).

There's a bit of trial-and-error there, as sometimes, there are unintended consequences to some of those rules as with prohibition. When we see that, we tweak those rules to conform better with that vision.

You tweek the rules according to WHAT? To achieve what end?

In humanism, the societal vision is given by utilitarian ethics, which strive to create the most freedom, economic opportunity, and social opportunity for as many as possible. In personals matters, it's the Golden Rule. Both embody love and empathy.

How did you determine this should be the goal of all mankind? And how are you acting to make it so when your sacred empirical epistemology completely ignores it.

There is no cult of scientism, but you seem to be a one-man cult dedicated to promoting that fiction.

Exactly what any cult member would say. They never see themselves as being in a cult, and they will not tolerate any implication that they are. Anyone that sees it and calls it out for what it is becomes an "enemy" of the cult and the cult dogma that the swear doesn't exist.

As you might have noticed, this atheistic humanist hasn't abandoned philosophy. I've given you much of my own here already. The rest has to do with naturalism.

Of course they have. Just ask them what they believe in and they will all tell you that the only thing they believe in is "science" (actually scientism). Nothing else matters to them. Philosophy is just "navel gazing", art is just mindless entertainment, and religion is for manipulating the stupid masses. Only the scientism cultists know what's really what. 'Cause they got the EVIDENCE! **chuckling**

 

[leroy]

No, leroy. Once again, you are wrong, this time about the equations.

The “equations” are parts of the explanations or parts of the predictions…THE EQUATIONS ARE NOT PART OF THE TESTS OR THE OBSERVATIONS, Leroy.

Formulating the equations occurred within the modelling of the explanation or within modelling of the predictions.

In another word, equations or formulas are parts of a hypothesis.

The explanations, which would include the equations, are only PROPOSALS, and they are subjected to tests. As a proposed equation, each equations along with the (proposed) explanation, are never automatically true, nor accepted, until each model (explanation & equations) has been individually tested.

The test doesn’t include the equation, as the equation is part of the hypothesis. So when you are testing the hypothesis, you would be also testing any equation that has been included with the explanation.

There are 2 types of test:

1. Observation 1: discovering and observing the EVIDENCE.
2. Observation 2: performing lab-controlled EXPERIMENTS.

There is 3rd observation - information acquired from the 2 observations above, from the “evidence” and from the “experiments”. These information include physical properties or its physical compositions, and these properties often include measurements, quantities, etc. Inf is often referred to as DATA.

it is these 3 observations that either refute or verify a hypothesis. So if the hypothesis has been REFUTED by the tests, then the equations have been refuted along with the explanation.

The evidence and/or experiments are independent of the explanations (including any equation) & the predictions.

Evidence & experiments are physical samples of natural & physical phenomena, whereas explanations along with any equation or any formula, are abstract models that are based on the model…and they are abstract because they are man-made or of human-constructs.

just as the hypothesis is an attempt to model the world with set of explanations, mathematical equations and formulas are models of abstract logic.

You are wrong.

And saying it is just semantics, is also wrong.

To avoid confusion, the science vocabulary should be agreed upon by all scientists, no matter what languages you speak in, they should be properly defined and understood, and there should be properly used In respective science & in their respective fields.

So words might be the same, in both science and law, like “proof”, but they have different meanings, contexts and usages. In legal studies and courtrooms, proof is synonymous with evidence, but they are not synonymous in natural sciences and in mathematics. Proofs are logical models, often represented either as formulas or as equations.

proof have more to do with mathematics, like when you are trying to solve the equations.

Evidence, on the other hand, is a physical sample of nature that has been “observed”.

For example, if you were a geologist, then your physical evidence would be rocks and their respective minerals. There are many types of rocks, but generally they are classified by the way they were composed, eg igneous rocks, sedimentary rocks, metamorphic rocks. As I said, these rocks would be the evidence, they are not proofs.

Another example would be electromagnetic fields. When Michael Faraday performed experiments in the lecture hall before his fellow scientists and students, he demonstrated that electricity from battery can both electric and magnetic fields from coiled wire (hence electromagnetic induction), that would make needle of galvanometer moved. These are all evidence, and all physical, including the electricity & the electromagnetic fields that were induced from the coil. Those are evidence, not proofs.

Proofs, are what Faraday’s contemporary did - James Clerk Maxwell, who based on Faraday’s teachings on electromagnetism, formulated a numbers of equations on EM fields. These Maxwell’s equations are proofs, they are not evidence.

Understanding the difference between evidence and proof are essential for avoiding confusion. Confusion that most creationists don’t understand. And after all these years, you have been here, you still cannot understand these differences. You are still repeating the same errors, as many other creationists do.

Proofs are maths, not physical evidence.

And apparently, you don’t know what a hypothesis is, when used in context in natural sciences. A hypothesis is falsifiable explanation, and such explanation must be in details, not a 1-liner sentence. You are not explaining anything with your examples.

It like you are only reading the headline, while ignoring the contents of an article. The contents in the explanation matters more in a hypothesis, you not explaining anything with a single sentence.

You have been corrected so many times, by different members, but you refused to acknowledge your errors. You just keep repeating the errors, while ignoring every correction. You are hypocrite when you said you would acknowledge any error you have made.

I disagree..... But is there anything relevant in your comments......... Pretend that I agree with everything you said.....then what? How does that affect my claim that gravitational lensing is evidence for dark matter or any other of my claims?